Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
CSPAN 5
CSPAN2 3
MSNBC 3
MSNBCW 3
LANGUAGE
English 25
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)
, they call it on harry reid and a famous pianist tries to get old creatures to act young again. the grapevine is next. ♪ ♪ >>. >> chris: and now fresh picking from the political grapevine. fact check.org found harry reid was wrong by claiming, quote. that the american people need to understand it's nothing not as if we have done nothing for the debt. $2.6 trillion already we've made in cuts. all those cuts have come from non-defense programs. the fact check organization says only $1.4 trillion have the deficit reduction was in spending cuts. the rest came from tax hikes. >>> a seven-year-old colorado boy has been suspended from cool for lobbing an imaginary grenade in order to save the planet. he did not threaten anyone but violated the school's list of absolutes which forbids weapons real or pretend. his mother doesn't think it's realistic important second graders but the school district tells the herald newspaper the story is more complicated than being portrayed. >> finally as the associated press puts it, no wonder they are in danger. galapagos for advertises aluminum period around wh
ought to stop calling it universal check, it's the check on law abiding people. >> reporter: harry reid says he supports the second amendment but he is not going on to let the nra getting in his way. >> just because they resist it doesn't mean we can't do things. we have a lot of special interest groups complain about things, we'll listen to them and make the right decision. >> he says the senate might soon debate on an assault weapons ban something that gabrielle giffords's husband argued for today. >> i spent 25 years in the military. i know the value of having an assault weapon and i think they are way too readily available. in time we will be able to address those issues. >> nra said enforcing existing laws would reduce gun violence and so would rounding up gangs in places like chicago. >> gregg: peter, thanks. >> heather: new information now on a charter bus crash in boston that left 35 people injured and one critically. the vehicle carrying high schoolers and chaperones it slammed into an overpass. the driver of the bus ignored road clearance warning signs. passengers say the impa
and a universal background check. senate majority leader harry reid says he's thinking bin doresing the backed checks but he's not to too ke, n on a ban on assault weapons. martha: he suggested that might not good over too well with his constituents. thank you very much. >> more on that now. republicans not the only ones questioning gun control measures. even the senate's top democrat is not sold on the idea. senate majority leader harry reid says he's willing to push for mow extensive background checks but he's not sure if he'll actually vote to bana salt weapons and high capacity a ammunition magazines, take a listen. >> i didn't volt for the assault weapons last night because it didn't make sense. i'll take a look eight. we need to take a look at federal trafficking. i think that everyone acknowledges we should do background checks. >> reareid must strike a delicate balance while following the president's lead without alienating nevada's balance. >> a navy seal was gunned down thousands of miles from any battlefield. chris kyle and a friend were shot and killed at a gun range in texas over
." do you remember when the top democrat in the senate, harry reid, declared just a few weeks ago the democrats would not change the rules in the senate? remember that? wouldn't change the rules to stop senate republicans from abusing the process there. harry reid decided he would just instead make a handshake deal with the republicans' top senator, mitch mcconnell. he said he was satisfied with the republicans just agreeing to be more reasonable on issues like this. remember? they wouldn't change the filibuster rules. they would just agree as gentlemen that the republicans would curtail the excesses of filibustering everything and effectively ruling from the minority. democrats decided to not change the rules on the filibuster and just make that agreement with the republicans instead. they said, you know, at a minimum this will at least improve the confirmation process for the administration's nominees. how is that working out now? just a couple of weeks later. how's that gentleman's agreement going? now that we've just had a filibuster of a cabinet nominee for the first time in
. >> that is classic harry reid. he said that when why do something he doesn't like. if we agreed to everything he wanted to do he might be happy. nevertheless, this is a serious situation when you talk about a secretary of defense. this is the most important choice a president can make. i think he's made a choice even democrats scratching their head and they were embarrassed also about the performance, unacceptable performance of chuck hagel before the armed services committee . i think it deserves at least a little time to continue to look at what his position and going and leadership he can or can't provide. i don't know what the democratics will circle the wagon and support the president. but many of them have real concerns over whether it a good choice. >> we'll see if they go public with those. senator dan coats, for your time. >> thank you. >> pakistani officials called a deadly bombing a failure of security and intelligence agencies. security official it is did not act because they are scared of what the terrorist may do to them. 81 people were kim 61 others were injured. a mass funeral is
, and the reason why it was 58 votes is because harry reid switched his vote to no soap the senate can bring it back up again. you have a lot of republican senators who were saying last week that they did not want to see it go up in filibuster. at least it would be an up-down of the to be approved. there was no precedent to filibuster a choice like this. and the republicans decided they wanted to use this vote as a way to extract more information from the white house on issues like the terrorist attack in benghazi in september, and so they are committed to passing a goal when they come back. the way you are looking at it, it is a tedious exercise in delaying the inevitable. chuck hagel will be confirmed. he will just have to wait 11 days. you should confirm him because you are going to confirm him anyway. it is just another delay in what the senate is trying to do. host: harry reid set a new vote for tuesday, in 11 days. what do republicans want to see in the meantime? guest: they say they would like answers again from the white house, more details about what the president did and did not do
votes will be problems for harry reid and the senate? these are issues that are going to come over here at some point. don't you -- hold up the process if he's having trouble on these tough issues? >> the legislative process was designed to be inefficient and difficult. so that if congress were able to move a bill through both houses and could agree upon a bill, it would actually become a law. so at the start of every session there are always a number of issues that carry over from the prior session. and frankly there's a lot of scar tissue that carries over with a lot of these bills. it's up to congress to figure out where the common ground is and how to deal with it. let me make clear i don't like the sequester. i think it's taking a meat ax to our government. meat ax to many programs and will weaken our national defense. that's why i fought to not have the sequester in the first place. but the president didn't want to have to deal with the debt limit again before his re-election. it was the president and senate democrats who committed to working with us to get an outcome out of the s
leader harry reid. so we have a very good relationship. and i think that's one that we're going to maintain through this thing. and i would say that senator reid on numerous occasions was concerned about republican nominations. during the bush era we had steven johnson. steven johnson, who incidentally, was a democrat for the e.p.a. administrator. i thought he'd be good. i think that there are several democrats that thought he would not be good, and so harry reid did what he's supposed to do. he interceded in behalf of the democrats who opposed him. well, they had a 60-vote margin. that's fine. they got 61 votes. dirk kempthorne was one that there was objection to. he was up for -- most of you remember him, a former senator from utah. he was up for the secretary of interior, and there are some people objecting to him. and of course that was back during the bush administration. he was nominated and he went ahead and he was confirmed. it was a 60-vote margin. there's nothing unusual about this. getting back to steven johnson, this is even more analogous to what we have what now, b
that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of september 11th but the respect on hagel to get a simple answer which we now know the answer was no. brad? >> you are absolutely right. we had some leverage over the white house and hagel was used at that levera
a balanced budget amendment the kind of things that endear people in the republican primary voter. and harry reid spent more money than any of the other candidates in order to get the weakest republican into the general election knowing that they had a very difficult uphill fight in missouri and sure enough they got the weakest candidate and he blew himself up with the infamous current about illegitimate rape. >> you say it is to put in more quote electable candidates. the conservative wing of the republican party says the most eledgable is the most moderate and that is not necessarily the people they want to see running for office. >> lock, look, looking, look, look, look, let's be clear about this. cross roads support for tea party candidates. we are the largest financial backers of tea party candidates for the senate and the house. we spent over $30 million for tea party senate candidate. over $25 million for house candidates. $2.9 million for marco rubio. more than any other group in the general election. $2.7 million for rand paul. $8 million in colorado for ken buck. $5.1 million in ne
reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothin
have barack obama who is a democrat, president of the united states. then we have harry reid who is the majority leader. so the democrats are in control of both. now, if you think back at what happened back in -- during the last bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. george bush was president of the united states and the democrats were a minority. same situation. so what happened? first of all, we had bolton come up, john bolton. same thing, subjected to a 60-vote margin. we had steve -- dirk kempthorne. all remember dirk kempthorne. there are a lot of people who did not approve of him. he was appointed by bush, a republican, and then when he came over here, the democrats didn't like him, they subjected him to a 60-vote margin. that wasn't a filibuster. this isn't a filibuster today. people are trying to say that and blame me as being the bad guy that's causing a filibuster. it's not the case at all. any more than it was the case back in the 2005-2006 and other times when we had a nominee that was put forth by president bush. it was objected to by the democrats. now, di
's the interesting thing. if you look today we have barack obama, democrat president of the united states. and harry reid the majority leader. and the democrats are in control of both. if you think back at what happened back in during the last bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. george bush was president of the united states, and the democrats were the minority. same situation. so what happened? first of all, we had both come up. john bolton same thing. subjected to a 60-vote margin. we had steve -- we remember dirk, there a lot of people that it not approve of him. he was appointed by bush, a republican, and then when he came over here the democrats didn't like him. they subjected him to a 60-vote margin. that wasn't a filibuster. it's not a filibuster today. people are trying to blame me the bad guy causing a filibuster. it's not the case at all. it anymore the case than the 2005, 2006, and other times when we had a nominee put forth by president wush who was objected to by the democrat. dirk when he was nominated to be the secretary of entire job, there was a lot of opposition to the
? >> yes. >> yes. thank you, senator. as i understand it on october 2, 2008, majority leader harry reid brought a similar bill to the floor. in fact, it was called the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability act of 2008. and he brought it to the floor in october 2, 2008. there have been media reports that you blocked unanimous consent for the consideration of that bill. are those reports true or not? >> i was one of some republican senators that did not want that vote to go forward. i voted against it in subcommittee. and the reason i did was because the bush administration did not want that bill to go forward. the reason they didn't was because they were involved in negotiations with the russians and the u.n. and security council members to put multilateral sanctions through. >> but just to be clear you did block unanimous contestant. >> i was -- con sent in >> i was part of those who did. >> would it surprise you that an earlier version of those sanctions bill was actually co- sponsored bicek taxpayer cary and clinton and obama at the time? would that surprise you? >> no. not nece
. the president has a proposal. i don't think it does sound, but let's vote on it. to harry reid, the house, it has decided on sequestration the past year we have done nothing in the senate. we are not doing anything in the senate. so, harry, please take the president's proposal or come up with one of your own. put it on the floor and let's start voting. we have our fingerprint as republicans on this sequestration idea. it was the president's idea that we come as the republican party agreed to it. we got in this mess together and we will have to get out together. mr. president, helped lead us. all like anyone else on this stage, you are the commander-in- chief. do you really want your legacy to be that you let the american congress into a deal that would destroy the military at the time it would need it the most? do you want to pivot to asia? how do you do that with 232 ships? when about iran acquiring nuclear capabilities? have you modernize the f-16 and the f-18? had you go deep into iran without the f-22 and the at-35 coming into being? our enemy would love this to happen here i'm sure i
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25 (some duplicates have been removed)